The Instigator
980730
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
phantom
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points

Is there actually a God/ higher being than us?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
phantom
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/23/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 664 times Debate No: 23118
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

980730

Con

There is no God. Why? Let's see.

Plantinga’s Argument
1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore a maximally great being exists.


Analysis:
1. Yes it is possible.
2. Yes, thats true.
3. This is false. If a "God" is in some possible world, then it can't be in EVERY world.
4. As stated in #3., this can't be possible because #3 is not possible.
5. No.
6. No.



As you can see, I did agree that the is a possibility that there is a high being, but did NOT say there was.
phantom

Pro

First I'm not exactly sure why con takes the time to refute the ontological argument in the first round. That's like me taking the problem of evil, refuting it and claiming that I've proved God exists, simply because I proved a theory of his no-existence wrong. I will not be using the ontological argument to affirm the resolution.

For this debate I will be defending the moral argument for the existence of God. The representation of the moral argument that I will be using is derived from various moral arguments, but the formation is self devised.



P.1 Without God, naturalism would be the next possible cause for morality.(By lack of other cause)
P.2 We possess a moral code in which we dicern moral facts by intuition or sense.(By observation)
P.3 This type of moral code requires a basis or source.(By necessity)
P.4 Naturalism could not account for this source.(By definition)
P.5 God can be the only other explanation for a moral code. (P.1)
P.6 God is the only possible source or basis for objective morality. (P.1, P.3- P.5)
P.7 God is the best explanation for a moral code. (P.1, P.3- P.6)
C. Therefore God exists. (P.1- P.7)




Naturalism co-existing with moral objectivity. Sb-P. Naturalism cannot account as a basis for morality.
Keep in mind that I am talking about a morality in which we naturally posses, within our being. The very idea of naturalism accounting for this type of morality refutes the whole basis of what a universal moral code is. No moral code as such can be naturally formed, because the very premise "natural", refutes the whole idea. This type of moral code needs a basis. In fact it necessarily requires it. If there were no God, naturalism would be the next viable belief. Every part of our body therefore would have had to have evolved, which would include our minds. In other words naturalism would have to entirely create us. With this fact in place there could be no way that objective morality could exist. For why would it? We would lack the necessary tool to make right/wrong judgments. Naturalism could be the only possible source, and naturalism is not a valid basis at all. Thus morality would be variant. If there is no greater power, than there is no basis for morality and thus there could be no such thing as a moral code. Morality could not exist considering these facts, and God can be the only explanation.[1][2][3]




Existence of objective morality
Let me make it clear that by moral code I do not mean all moral facts are objective, but that a basic moral code exists and that some objective moral facts do indeed exist. I think it has been established that naturalism and this moral code cannot co-exist, so now the only thing to do is prove that more than likely a moral code does exist. By observation, moral objectivity is evident. Morality is not something that is flippant in nature; it is polar. Certain actions are blatantly obviously wrong, such as shoving shards of glass into a two year old babies eyes simply out of pure delight. Human beings possess advanced cognitive faculties, and everything suggests that we possess the natural ability to differentiate between right and wrong. We can deduce certain facts, not logically but naturally. I can recognize signals from my sense of smell, and touch, just as I can recognize facts that my moral sense gives me. We cannot hold the view that our senses are incredibly untrustworthy. In fact to deny a moral sense would be to assert that we, for some reason, own a natural intuition that is entirely and completely flawed. The naturalist needs to answer the puzzling question, why do we have such a strong moral perception if it is entirely untrustworthy? In fact would not the naturalist believe that evolution would have by now eliminated this hindrance? Instead we would be left perplexed on why we as humans reserve such a deceptive and useless natural sense. It is plausible to believe that objective morality, if caused by God, would be something that humans are naturally in-tune with, and that is the exact type of morality that is evident in observation. Denying this fact only brings up opposing questions. For to negate this you would have to argue that we possess a highly, unreliable, deceptive and useless natural instinct, when there is no explanation through naturalism as to why we it naturally exists with in us.
[4][5]

Now there might be certain people who do not have much of a moral sense, however when we look at these people we will always find that they have some kind of mental disorder. Thus they are not applicable for by mutation their moral sense has been skewed, not by the subjectivity of moral laws.[6]








Moral and sense perception comparative
Morality is something that humans are naturally in-tune with Hence "moral code". This sort of objective morality is somewhat analogous to sense perception. There is not much of a categorical difference between moral and sense perception. Our sense perceptions are often prima facie reliable. They allow us to perceive facts and make judgments. Hearing a sound behind me allows me to reason that someone is approaching. My sense perception allowed me to perceive a certain fact, just as our moral sense allows us to perceive certain facts. There is no reason to believe moral and sense perceptions are non-comparative. Our sense perceptions are within a reasonable amount accurate and our moral perception would have to be greatly skewed if we do not confirm to the fact that they are analogous. In fact we can see that the moral intuition which we do possess is contrary to that of what evolution would produce, for certain facts that are more logical we conceive of as barbaric. For example, our moral sense strongly dictates that killing those who are weak and un-benefical to society in order so that the superior may survive, is very wrong. However this would be directly in line with survival of the fitness and thus our moral senses dictate something that would be contrary to what a naturally formed moral intuition would dictate. [2][7]


Sources:


[1] Audi, Robert (1996). "Naturalism". In Borchert, Donald M.. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy Supplement. USA: Macmillan Reference. pp. 372–374.
[2] http://www.encyclopedia.com...... truths
[3] Schafersman, Steven D. (1996). "Naturalism is Today An Essential Part of Science". "Methodological naturalism is the adoption or assumption of naturalism in scientific belief and practice without really believing in naturalism."

Debate Round No. 1
980730

Con

980730 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
980730

Con

980730 forfeited this round.
phantom

Pro

Fun fun fun on the autobahn.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 4 years ago
lannan13
980730phantomTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
980730phantomTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: well that was fun to read....
Vote Placed by Xerge 4 years ago
Xerge
980730phantomTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit..